[governance] Re: moving more

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi,

Just a quick word of thanks to CSers able to participate in the various meetings last week.

Under let's just say - suboptimal conditions - you all did great, bravo.

As to all the time wasted on procedural/political minutia - as McTim might note - hey it's the UN, what did you expect? ; )

Lee

PS: Seriously, it seems a requirement of UN negotiations that the first day (at least) be wasted largely on such matters; only when pressure/fear of going home having accomplished - zip - is in people's minds, does much happen.
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:57 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: moving more

Yes, I also am aware that CSTD WG is not open nor bottom-up.
But then phrasing it as "top-down" is also somewhat mis-leading to us.
I agree it is a closed meeting, but there was not discussion about that
WG be under Chatham House rule. There were several observers
who are not identified.

Yet, one of the reasons why I have proposed that at least one of
two IGC coordinators be in the CSTD WG, (as well as MAG), is to have
better liaison between IGC and WG or MAG which were not there at the
MAG. Thus on the one hand I feel obliged to liaise, report, between the
two. I did not specifically said or confirmed that myself and other WG 4 members
nominated by CS NocCom be the "representatives" of IGC. In fact, most
of us mostly acted as in their own capacity unless we mention specifically
that this is the IGC (even not CS)'s common position.

So I am of course more responsible to represent the IGC as the coordinator
than the other four members. But still I think I could make my informal
comments on matters where IGC itself does not have strong consensus,
as my own views inside WG meetings. This is my understanding.

As others said, there seems to be the consensus in the WG that we should
respect that IGF keeps its open and MSH nature including a good deal of
bottom-up process of shaping it. Not for the decision making of Internet
governance in general, as there is no such consensus, but at
least for the making of IGF, including MAG, be open, bottom-up, transparent
as much as possible. [not for the operating procedure of CSTD].

The WG did not agree with making a small drafting group.
For work efficiency, I thought it is better than doing all by
open-ended plenary meeting. But we agreed that we will
seek for public input very openly, then compile these into
the draft report and will work through it to make final report.
Even when proposing the "drafting group" the intention is that
it is an editorial group and will not create new text, but rather
just compile inputs from all contributions.

As for the Outcome of the IGF, it is true some proposed to bring them
to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA at CSTD WG meeting, but there was no substantial
discussion about this proposal, and there is no consensus at all.
Bring outcomes to relevant bodies, instead were proposed, including
that of Brazil:

"IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant
international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The
outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding,
non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and
capture alternative options where there are differing views and
alternative suggestions."

So, there was no  "G77" position or move at the WG meeting. I have not
seen "IBSA" join work either. India and Brazil were not always in the
same position. South Africa was even not there.

I understand Avri's and others' concern that the "outcome oriented" be
crafted into such that it ultimately gives authority to UN on any or all
Internet Governance policy issue decision making. But, at least myself
and other CS members inside CSTD WG do not have such intention
nor idea. Yes, Parminder and I have different views on this, and he is
be more positive to bring public policy issues into more formal UN decision
making policy process, but still, he did not go that far.

izumi

2011/2/28 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> Hi all
>
> I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is
> not bottom-up :)
>
> What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things:
>
> * the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing
> IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report
>
> * agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on
> policy, not for negotiating policy
>
> * agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation
>
> The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report'
> will be opened to the IGF community at large.
>
> This will happen in the next few days.  I think that EVERYONE on this
> list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities.
>
> Anriette
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t